While this will probably not change your site or your thinking, and while I am sure I am not the first person to point this out, much of your reasoning rests on a fatal flaw in understanding.

In the Bible verse you quote, Matthew 21:21, for example, you accurately quote Jesus as saying "if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

Along with other verses mentioned on your site however, you misinterpret and de-contextualize the meaning of the words.

The question in Matthew rests on what one is placing his or her belief IN. In other words, what is the object or subject of your belief? It is yourself, the prayers, the request? The text is not saying "If you fervently believe in what you are asking for, you will receive it."

Instead it is stating, "If you believe IN CHRIST, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." One must first believe in Christ! that He is able to do all things according to the will of God.

Secondly, Scripture, whether Old Testament or New, is written in a didactic way, where two seemingly contradictory elements are brought together; it is meant to be read, therefore, with an eye towards paradox. (Note that a paradox is not a contradiction.) So that even a verse such as Matthew 19:26 stating that in Christ all things are possible, one must still temper those with verses that insist (that) without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

That said, God's miraculous healings still happen today. There are many, many accounts of people being healed in ways science cannot account for. For reasons known only to the mind of God, most of the healings (even the ones I know of) tend to be the REMOVAL of something, not the GROWTH of something.

People have had sight restored for example; but it is through the removal of hindrances to eyesight, not the growing of new eyeballs. Why this is, I don't know. It doesn't matter.

The idea that God not re-growing amputees limbs somehow disproves His existence is wholly insufficient to "explain away" God. It simply proves that God operates in ways different from how we would expect or like (which is also found in the Bible). He wouldn't be much of a God if He did everything the way humans did.

Creation itself (with all of its fine-tuning) is a pretty big evidentiary clue that God exists; that needs to still be dealt with, as well as many other factual and logical problems that come up for those believing in a godless universe. Even science has gotten back into the game recently with the Big Bang matching Judeo-Christian accounts of the origin of the world.

This may or may not provide clarification for you. It is true whether you believe it or not.

Grace and peace to you,[name removed]

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Well, that god of yours seems pretty complicated. Good thing there are people out there who can explain it to those of us just trying to get by. So, since I don't believe in the "sky daddy" I guess I cannot expect It to do anything for me. That's fine. I take care of myself. Just tell his followers to stay back and quit trying to force their beliefs on those of us who don't buy into the god thing.

Creation itself (with all of its fine-tuning) is a pretty big evidentiary clue that God exists; that needs to still be dealt with, as well as many other factual and logical problems that come up for those believing in a godless universe.

The "fine tuning" argument would hold more weight if Mars and Venus had turned out to be more like Edgar Rice Burroughs envisioned. The majority of the universe is "fine tuned" for literally nothing, certainly not Earthly life. In addition, there are far more problems with logic and a so-far total lack of evidence for a universe with a god or gods.

Quote

Even science has gotten back into the game recently with the Big Bang matching Judeo-Christian accounts of the origin of the world.

This may or may not provide clarification for you. It is true whether you believe it or not.

Grace and peace to you,[name removed]

If the Judeo-Christian accounts of the origin of the world / universe had mentioned the cosmic microwave radiation or other key observed evidence of the Big Bang, then they would have something approaching validity. But the best they can do is claim common elements with the origin myths of Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and similar creation stories. And likewise claim the same amount of empirical evidence: none.

Your apologetics are not well thought-out and unconvincing.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

The idea that God not re-growing amputees limbs somehow disproves His existence is wholly insufficient to "explain away" God. It simply proves that God operates in ways different from how we would expect or like

It also provides the fact none of these 'healings' you mention are distinguishable from pure chance. It points to the fact when unambiguous miracles are needed for a person to be whole and fully functioning...they never happen.

In other words there is NOTHING to distinguish what you believe from fiction; NOTHING that gives your belief in Yahweh any more weight than someone from anceint Greece believeing in Zues.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

The idea that God not re-growing amputees limbs somehow disproves His existence is wholly insufficient to "explain away" God.

You are right, it doesn't. But it is not meant to. However, the idea that god heals some things but never, ever heals others is significant. There are only a few conclusions at which you can arrive about a god that does this.

that needs to still be dealt with, as well as many other factual and logical problems that come up for those believing in a godless universe.

Sure, sure. Come here, join our forum and lay it all out for us. We'd be interested to know what these factual and logical problems are. Just please be aware, we've all of us here been down those roads before. Don't be surprised to discover you are wrong.

While this will probably not change your site or your thinking, and while I am sure I am not the first person to point this out, much of your reasoning rests on a fatal flaw in understanding.

In the Bible verse you quote, Matthew 21:21, for example, you accurately quote Jesus as saying "if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

Along with other verses mentioned on your site however, you misinterpret and de-contextualize the meaning of the words.

You can re-contextualize the passages of the bible in any manner you deem appropriate, as long as you recognize that the men who wrote the books did so from the inspiration of an all-powerful god who cannot possibly exist.

My context is that the bible is prose written by old men but means nothing otherwise. What religious book wasn't written with inspiration from its god? Which bible is correct? Obviously, yours would be correct or you wouldn't follow it. That is the true context. You view your bible/bible god/god in the way that means something to you. It's not better, it's not worse, it's just you.

Contextualizing passes of the bible is whatever you want it to be, but for many of us it is much ado about nothing.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.